I remember listening to a dhamma talk by Ajahn Chah asking his disciples to develop an inner sense of shame, not from other people, but internally. On the other hand, other Ajahns advice to avoid the inner tyrant and not to be overly critical of oneself.

Buddhism teaches us to take responsibility of our action, but at the same time to let go. Feelings of guilt and shame is somehow linked to sila (right and wrong) so understanding the place of guilt and shame in Buddhism might help me understand the place of sila in the practice.

Again, the difficulty arises because sila can be seen as the foundation. However, if i understand correctly, it is not an end in itself as Buddhism implies to go beyond good and bad. Also feelings of guilt and shame are linked to self view, and self view is wrong view.

Does Buddhism encourages feelings of guilt and shame or discourage them? or does it encourage them only at the beginning of the practice?

I welcome sutta references which might help me to understand, but i kindly request discussants who provide sutta references to share their understanding of the context in which the sutta applies. In other words, can/should it be generalized? or is it relevant to a specific case? and why?

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

Although little mentioned in contributions on DW, moral shame and moral dread (conscience & concern) are in fact necessary constituents of all wholesome consciousness, therefore they are to be encouraged and developed. They form the front line of defence against unwholesome action and are called “The Guardians of the World” (AN 2.9, 7.6).

Sila is the foundation of practice and literally gives rise to the sequence of qualities of concentration and insight, and is the only one which requires an act of will. (AN 11.2)

This passage puts moral shame and dread into their path perspective as connected to right effort:

“Ardency (atappa) is the desire to avoid what is unbeneficial.
Ven. Maha Kassapa: “And how is one ardent? There is the case where a monk, (thinking,) ‘Unarisen evil, unskillful qualities arising in me would lead to what is unbeneficial,’ arouses ardency. (Thinking,) ‘Arisen evil, unskillful qualities not being abandoned in me...’ ... ‘Unarisen skillful qualities not arising in me ...’ ... ‘Arisen skillful qualities ceasing in me would lead to what is unbeneficial,’ he arouses ardency. This is how one is ardent.” — SN 16:2

The discourses often pair ardency with compunction (ottappa), fear of the consequences of doing evil, perhaps because the words are so similar in meaning and—in Pali—in sound. (Here I am using compunction in its American sense, as a twinge of scrupulous conscience prior to doing wrong.) Working together, these two qualities find expression in the determined abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities. Without them, the goal would be impossible to attain.

“A person without ardency, without compunction, is incapable of self- awakening, incapable of unbinding, incapable of attaining the unsurpassed safety from bondage. A person ardent & compunctious is capable of self-awakening, capable of unbinding, capable of attaining the unsurpassed safety from bondage.” — Iti 34

“If, while he is walking, there arises in a monk a thought of sensuality, a thought of ill will, or a thought of harmfulness, and he does not quickly abandon, dispel, demolish, or wipe that thought out of existence, then a monk walking with such a lack of ardency & compunction is called continually & continuously lethargic & low in his persistence. [Similarly if he is standing, sitting, or lying down.]
“But if, while he is walking, there arises in a monk a thought of sensuality, a thought of ill will, or a thought of harmfulness, and he quickly abandons, dispels, demolishes, & wipes that thought out of existence, then a monk walking with such ardency & compunction is called continually &
continuously resolute, one with persistence aroused. [Similarly if he is standing, sitting, or lying down.]” — Itivuttaka 110

However, if i understand correctly, it is not an end in itself as Buddhism implies to go beyond good and bad.

Not really with regards to morality of actions. "Beyond good and bad" generally refers to being enlightened and therefore incapable of making further good and bad kamma, AKA beyond good and bad.

Dhammapada 97. The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men.

However, even though one has gone "beyond good and bad", an enlightened one still acts in a morally perfect manner.

"You should train yourself thus, Kassapa: 'A keen sense of shame and fear of wrong-doing (hiri-ottappa) shall be present in me towards seniors, novices, and those of middle status in the Order."

Yes, the Buddha encourage a sense of shame or guilt of wrong-doing, as long as you cultivate those states skillfully (wholesome states increasing, unwholesome states decreasing).

Its like when the Buddha adviced meditating on the foulness of the body to abandon lust and some monks took it the wrong way and ended up commiting suicide. Just because it can be a good practice, doesn´t mean every person will do it the right way.

Thank you everyone for your replies. I think the following paragraph by Bhikkhu Bodhi describes how i misunderstood the importance of guilt and shame:

In the present-day world, with its secularization of all values, such notions as shame and fear of wrong are bound to appear antiquated, relics from a puritanical past when superstition and dogma manacled our rights to uninhibited self-expression. Yet the Buddha's stress on the importance of hiri and ottappa was based on a deep insight into the different potentialities of human nature. He saw that the path to deliverance is a struggle against the current, and that if we are to unfold the mind's capacities for wisdom, purity and peace, then we need to keep the powderkeg of the defilements under the watchful eyes of diligent sentinels.

I have always thought of guilt and shame as tools created by society to make people behave, and obviously they are not working evident by how the vast majority of humans act. I misinterpreted "the struggle against the current" by perceiving ideas of good and bad, right and wrong, as an unnecessary sham, another attempt by us to avoid our emptiness.

Maybe the necessity of guilt and shame is an evidence of our emptiness, after all, if there is a self that we can ultimately control, we can skip or let go of some aspects of the path (who wants to feel guilty or shameful anyway?!).

Whenever i think of myself as an exception, life proves me wrong.

Peace

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"